Talk:2012 Romanian constitutional crisis

Fals info

„government restricts the attributions of the Constitutional Court, so its vote can no longer influence the suspension of the President. More accurate, CCR judges may only give an advisory opinion on the matter.” The statement above is false, the Constitution establishes in Art. 95 that the court gives only an advisory opinion on the suspension. The government did not change anything.--Mahetin (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Your info is incomplete. if what you're saying is correct on the first phase of the suspension process, where the Constitutional court(CCR) has a consultative function, but not true on the validation part. If you check Official Journal No 445 from 4 July 2012 :

Alineatul (1) al articolului 27 din Legea nr. 47/1992 privind organizarea si funcţionarea Curţii Constituţionale, republicatã în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, nr. 807 din 3 decembrie 2010, cu modificãrile şi completãrile ulterioare, se modificã şi va avea urmãtorul cuprins: Art. 27. - (1) Curtea Constituţionalã se pronunţã asupra constituţionalitãţii regulamentelor Parlamentului, la sesizarea unuia dintre preşedinţii celor douã camere, a unui grup parlamentar sau a unui numãr de cel puţin 50 de deputaţi sau de cel puţin 25 de senatori.

— O.U. nr. 38/4 iulie 2012 pentru modificarea Legii nr. 47/1992 privind organizarea si functionarea Curtii Constitutionale, http://www.monitoruljuridic.ro/act/ordonanta-de-urgenta-nr-38-din-4-iulie-2012-pentru-modificarea-legii-nr-47-1992-privind-organizarea-si-functionarea-curtii-constitutionale-emitent-139315.html

the original text from the law was like this

Art.27. - (1) Curtea Constituţională se pronunţă asupra constituţionalităţii regulamentelor Parlamentului, a hotărârilor plenului Camerei Deputaţilor, a hotărârilor plenului Senatului şi a hotărârilor plenului celor două Camere reunite ale Parlamentului, la sesizarea unuia dintre preşedinţii celor două Camere, a unui grup parlamentar sau a unui număr de cel puţin 50 de deputaţi sau de cel puţin 25 de senatori.

— law 47/1992

the difference is obvious , on simple translation the CCR attributions were reduced only to analyze the constitutionality of internal Parliament regulations. This may have allowed the parliament to change the result of referendum and to validate it through parliamentary decisions(hotărâre a parlamentului), no matter the court decision - mandatory on the validation phase. Gmtro (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Improving the article

Please improve the contents of the article by adding consistent information cited by reliable sources and appropriate images. Thank you. — Kr1st1deejay97 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2012 (EET)

Duplicate and biased article

This article aim is to describe the "political crisis on 2012's Romania", but it's major focus is on the Romanian president impeachment from July 2012. In this form it should be removed as it's covering the same events as presidential impeachment referendum 2012
nevertheless in this form this article it's higly biased. Bellow are some points were the article has to be improved to one more neutral form
As I know, Wikipedia should not be used for political propaganda.

• the political crisis of year 2012 is not resumed to and only to one or two person - the President Mr. Traian Basescu and Prime Minister Mr Ponta. All the actors should be involved: governing coalition leaded by PDL and USL. It has not and it's not a two person dispute
• the protests started on autumn of 2011 and continued through winter to 2012...
• Mr. Ponta has arrived on office only on May 2012; no reference at the events prior to this event as supposed from the title of the document
• the role of USL in this dispute and protests is quasi ignored, though some USL leader have publicly acknowledged the implication in the protests
• No reference on the plans to impeach the president as presented on TV by Mr. Voiculescu from April(step-by-step plans)
• Mr. Ponta plagiarism had no role in impeachment ; "Diesel fuel" dossier has no relevance also - if this facts are considered relevant, the suicide attempt of ex-PM Adrian Nastase should be considered and described at the same level...
• there is no clear description of the Constitutional Court(CCR) attributions reduction witch affected the all process. This should be described in a special section
• no mention on CCR official statement on the impeachment document - mandatory on the process - witch has not endorsed the allegations
• no mention that the referendum was contested by organizer : USL government(!) and the pro-USL media, no mention on the media and politically pressures on the judges to validate the referendum
• The Number of electors : the 2011 census, highly boycotted at the time by USL, had to produce official result only in 2013. The partially result were first scheduled for September 2012, but the May2012 government change, followed by "depoliticize" process of all agencies, has delayed these results to November 2012. The election in Dec 9 had almost the same number of electors on the list as in July
• the aftermath discussions description from EP are also biased
• The President of PDL Vrancea, Alin Trășculescu, was NOT caught in the act(!) by anti-corruption prosecutors while receiving € 50,000 from a businessman in the form of bribe. One of his Business partners was in this positions, he was arrested and later his parliament immunity lifted - please describe correctly the incident!
• protest section is highly ambiguous... as the "protests" were actively all over the year, every statement should be referred more accurate.
• the protester numbers are slightly exaggerated in USL favor... no reference on the protest organized in winter/spring by USL
• please rename or delete the box "2012 Romania civil unrest". As it is defined, it's completely outside of the scope of the document. And comparing to Greece, Romanian "unrest" seems a boring college party
• the marriage of Mr Traian Basescu daughter is not relevant to the subject.... nor the behavior of senator Ghise... nor the 1st December "incidents" as the leaders of USL were "booed by some of the spectators" also... these are "social events" news not political ones. none of them have affected the "political crisis"

Gmtro (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The aforementioned statement is nevertheless highly biased as well, this time against the anti-Băsescu part. How is the depoliticisation action of the government somehow affecting the referendum. How is that relevant to the political crisis? Who says which is the pro-USL media and which is not? At the same time, who says which is the pro-Băsescu media and which is not? The discussion description from the EP is not biased at all, I have personally watched the debate and what is described mostly resembles what actually happened. And no, the protests started in January 2012 not in the autumn of 2011. The marriage of Băsescu's daughter and the behaviour of Mr. Ghișe are on the contrary, relevant to the whole situation, because they are related to the Băsescu detractor's camp.This whole statement of the above user is ludicrous and should be dealt with as such. It's merely a fallacy.

Cipika (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2012–2013 Romanian protests which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)